Gah I'm worried Linux will have some vulnerability there. To be fair, I don't care about userland vulnerabilities, since I sandbox my internet browser and such. I'm worried about kernel vulnerabilities only.

the current spending electric to mine is, maybe a kind of wasting? idk, what is the purpose of mining, because those electric could be use on other stuffs to produce physical stuffs instead of virtual stuffs

is it possible, to transmit liquid or gas from hong kong to singapore using internet?
if underlying of everything is 1 and 0, then everything should be possible, imo,

It is a flawed design. Its fatal flaw is that there's a finite number of bitcoins available in existence (not all are mined yet of course).

What's so bad about finite amount of money? Deflation. Yeah, inflation is bad, but deflation is worse. It will become truly premium currency over time as people lose their bitcoin wallets. People lose "real" money all the time; they die, accidents happen, they forget them or the passwords, etc. It happens.

Lost wallets still exist, cryptographically, they're just never used anymore. They take up valuable "bitcoin availability" since they're never entering any transaction ever again. Since there's a finite amount of bitcoins in existence, wasting a limited amount of coins is a very bad thing. Especially as human population will continue growing (i.e. more bitcoin demand). I mean hey, its price is already going up, that means it's being deflated, because mining is harder as time goes on (until it's over).

I wonder when it's over, what incentives will there exist for miners to even process transactions?

how to create a non-authority based authorized money supply? i see plantation, growing crops, food, i think i wrote it sometime ago, we shouldn't have infinite money that could stay as money forever,

if flour is money, it would last for 3 or so years, unless you invest more money to build a cold storage for flour, eventually it doesn't make sense to store large amount of flour,

nobody would have to die from hunger if flour is money,

but does making more food and allow people to think we got big surplus food to feed incoming babies a good idea? idk,

there are lot of unsolved human issues, from input, process to output, lots of issues,

in fact, trying to communicate with only 1 person would produce so much conflicts, imagine the conflicts trying to communicate with 10, 100, 1000, or 1 million human, imagine the conflicts with 7 billions currently on earth, even you got the technology, eg, to say something into their mind, the feedback will cause you gone insane,

even our nice small 10 to 20 active members forum also could produce so much conflicts, maybe human should be wipe from the surface of earth,

how to create a non-authority based authorized money supply? i see plantation, growing crops, food, i think i wrote it sometime ago, we shouldn't have infinite money that could stay as money forever,

I'm not sure if it's truly feasible to have one without a central authority. To me it's like real life, and I'm sure some people will disagree with me here (we had such debate in your other thread, like with ford ).

IMO, it is an absolute mistake to give any single person (permanent) ownership over a finite resource. It's just not sustainable. This applies even in a "world without government" (i.e. decentralized) for anything, not just bitcoin.

If someone owns land, and he eventually dies without "passing" that ownership to anyone else, who owns the land then? Is it free for the taking? Whoever claims it first? So we get wars and stuff? There's no central authority to revoke it or anything regulated. Let's fight like kids over it. "I saw it first, no I touched it first it's mine!!!" and thus wars are born.

Now, with bitcoin it's even worse. Because the owner that died or forgot/lost his bitcoin wallet literally lost it. You can't even forcefully claim it as yours anymore. It's just gone.

This is a problem even if the population stood constant and there was no growth. But with growth, even without such a problem, a finite amount of resources would still make it unsustainable.

it is an absolute mistake to give any single person (permanent) ownership over a finite resource

i agree

Furs wrote:

who owns the land then?

i think, every human on earth entitled a fair share and fair usage of any piece of land, we could take the time sharing computer as an example,

eg, it could be,
we created a kind of crypto coin that grow along with human population, a male coin and a female coin,
if they have sex , the crypto code will decide randomly, whether the new coin is male or female,

now the coin need human years to grow up, before it could produce another new coin,

and there also exists the mechanism to cause the coin to die, those are random event, basically algorithm used to maintain the balance on this crypto coin,

wait, did i say, we all are actually human coin? we are the monies used by those aliens,

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum